Delete server template

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the two-phase behavior: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus confirm_token, and only the repeated call with the token deletes. It also notes the share link stops working, adding genuine behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every clause adds value—there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a deletion tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: the effect (share link stops working), the safe confirmation flow, and what the first call returns (preview + confirm_token). This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (code and guild have descriptions; dry_run and confirm_token do not). The description compensates by explaining the roles of confirm_token and the dry-run behavior, even though it does not name the parameters directly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('Delete') and resource ('server template'), and adds the specific consequence that the share link stops working. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_server_template and sync_server_template.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear guidance on how to call the tool safely: the first call is a preview, and the second call with the confirm_token deletes. It implies when to use it (for deleting templates) and explains the two-step safe workflow, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.